Talking Points for the RH Bill (courtesy of the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan)

Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues
Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1, 2010)

The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.

The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:

The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.

Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.

Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according to their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.

Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.

Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?


Employers' Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.

Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.

Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.

Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.

The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.

Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.

An Open Letter to Noynoy by F. Sionil Jose

An open letter to Noynoy

HINDSIGHT

by F Sionil Jose
from The Philippine Star

Dear Noynoy,

You are now swamped with suggestions and advice, but just the same, I hope you’ll have time to read what this octogenarian has to say.

You were not my choice in the last election but since our people have spoken, we must now support you and pray that you prevail. But first, I must remind you of the stern reality that your drumbeaters ignore: you have no noble legacy from your forbears. It is now your arduous job to create one yourself in the six years that you will be the single most powerful Filipino. Six years is too short a time — the experience in our part of the world is that it takes at least one generation — 25 years — for a sick nation to recover and prosper. But you can begin that happy process of healing.

Bear in mind that the past weighs heavily on all of us because of the many contradictions in it that we have not resolved, whose resolutions would strengthen us as a nation. This past is now your burden, too. Let us start with the fact that your grandfather collaborated with the Japanese. Your father was deeply aware of this, its stigma, its possibilities. He did not leave any legacy because he did not become president. He was a brilliant and courageous politician. He was an enterprising journalist; he had friends in journalism who can attest to his effulgent vision, who did not profit from his friendship, among them Nestor Mata, Gregorio Brillantes — you may consult them. I cannot say I did not profit — he bought many books from my shop and when he was in Marcos’s prison, your mother brought books from my shop to him.

Forgive me for giving you this unsolicited advice. First, beware of hubris; you are surrounded by panderers who will tell you what is nice to hear. You need to be humble always and heed your conscience. When Caesar was paraded in ancient Rome before the cheering multitudes, there was always a man chanting behind him: “Remember, you are mortal.”

I say to you, remember, the poor — some of them in your own hacienda — will be your ultimate judge.

From your comfortable and privileged cocoon, you know so little of our country and people. Seek the help of the best — and the best do not normally want to work in government and neither will they approach you. You have to seek them.

Be the revolutionary your father wanted to be and don’t be scared or wary of the word “revolution.” It need not be always bloody. EDSA I was not. Your father wanted to destroy the most formidable obstacle to our progress — the Oligarchy to which you and your family belong. To succeed, you have to betray your class. If you cannot smash the oligarchy, at least strive to have their wealth develop this country, that they bring back the billions they stashed abroad. You cannot do this in six years, but you can begin.

Prosecute the crooks. It is difficult, thankless and even dangerous to do this. Your mother did not do it — she did not jail Imelda who was the partner in that conjugal dictatorship that plundered this nation. Watch her children — they were much too young to have participated in that looting but they are heirs to the billions which their parents stashed abroad. Now the Marcoses are on the high road to power, gloating, snickering at our credulity and despicable amnesia.

You know the biggest crooks in and out of government, those powerful smugglers, thieves, tax cheats — all you really need is guts to clobber them. Your father had lots of it — I hope he passed on to you most of it.

And most of all, now that you have the muscle to do it, go after your father’s killers. Blood and duty compel you to do so. Cory was only his wife — you are the anointed and only son. Your regime will be measured by how you resolve this most blatant crime that robbed us of a true leader.

And, finally, your mother. We loved her — she united us in ousting an abominable dictator. But she, too, did not leave a shining legacy for her presidency was a disaster. She announced a revolutionary government but did nothing revolutionary. She promised land reform but did not do it. And most grievous of all — she transformed the EDSA I revolution into a restoration of the oligarchy.

She became president only because her husband was murdered and you became president elect only because your mother died. Still, you are your father’s son and may you now — for the good of this country and people — scale the heights he and your mother never reached.

I am 85 and how I despair over how three generations of our leaders failed! Before I go, please let me see this unhappy country begin to be a much better place than the garbage dump our leaders and people have made it. You can be this long awaited messiah but only if you are brave enough and wise enough to redeem your father’s aborted promise.

Hopefully yours,

F. Sionil Jose

Sumilao Farmers' Fight Still On Going

Hindi pa pala natatapos ang pakikibaka ng mga Sumilao Farmers. Akala natin ok na ang lahat, yun pala pinapaikot-ikot nanaman ng mga may kapangyarihan ang proseso upang tumagal ang kanilang paghihirap.

Mabuti at bantayan natin ito muli. Salamat!

29 March 2010

PRESS RELEASE

Reference: Atty. Kaka Bag-ao (09068375849)

Sumilao land remains undistributed after 2 years; Sumilao farmers resume claim over disputed 144-hectare land

Two years ago today, in March 29, 2007, the Sumilao farmers signed an agreement with San Miguel Corporation (SMC), represented by its president, Ramon Ang in the presence of Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales. In signing of the agreement, SMC ceded 50 of the 144 hectares being claimed by the Sumilao farmers and committed to acquire 94 hectares of land outside the disputed property for distribution to the farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform. This marked the end of the Sumilao campaign which started with their historic 1,700 kilometer-march from Sumilao to Malacañang. As a direct result of their 1,700 kilometer march, President Arroyo revoked the conversion order covering the contested property in December 2007 and ordered the distribution of the property under the CARP forcing SMC to the negotiating table with the farmers. After the signing of the agreement, the Sumilao farmers returned home and occupied and began to cultivate the 50 hectares covered by the agreement.

However, after two years, the Sumilao farmers are yet to receive the land titles of the 50 hectares within the contested property and the 94 hectares outside the 144-hectare disputed land. “We have met with the representatives of SMC and the DAR and they have promised the land titles every time we met. Deadline after deadline came and went but the promised land titles failed to materialize. Even the title of 50 hectares we are now tilling remains an unfulfilled promise” Peter Tuminhay, spokesperson of the Sumilao Farmers said. He added that the lands offered to them by SMC have various problems; some of the lands are still leased to Del Monte, some had titles that were not surrendered by the landowners.

“Last February, Atty. Fred Peñaflor, legal counsel of San Miguel Corporation committed to us that they will distribute the titles for the 50 hectares of land that we are now tilling and the 94 hectares outside the 1-44-hectare property today on the 2^nd anniversary of the signing of our agreement. After waiting for 2 years and listening to promises several times, this will be the last deadline. Should they fail to distribute the titles today, as they have promised, we take it that San Miguel Corporation is not serious about fulfilling its commitments to us. It is almost a year since our leader, Rene Peñas was gunned down here in this land. We can no longer wait for more promises. We will to return to our original claim, should they again break their promise today, we shall begin to occupy and cultivate portions of original 144-hectare land” said Yoyong Merida, spokesperson of the Sumilao farmers. “We call on those who have supported our struggle to once again join us in our cause. We will not stop until we cultivate the land that belongs to us” Merida added.

In commemorating the 2^nd anniversary of the signing of the agreement, Malaybalay Archbishop Honesto Pacana will celebrate a mass with the farmers at their camp outside the gates of San Miguel Corporation in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon. He will join the farmers in demanding the distribution of the Sumilao property.

--
BALAOD Mindanaw, Inc.
2/F BELSAR Building,
Capistrano-Del Pilar Sts., Barangay 19,
9000 Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
+63 8822 727432 (telefax)
balaodmindanaw@ gmail.com
balaod_mindanaw@ yahoo.com

Statement of the Ateneo Law School Student Council re: CJ Appointment Controversy

The Ateneo Law School Student Council calls on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to exercise prudence, restraint, and statesmanship in deferring the appointment of the next chief justice of the Supreme Court to the duly elected President in the coming May 10, 2010 elections.

The impending retirement of Chief Justice Renato Puno on 17 May 2010 has been shrouded with much issue and controversy, centering on the power of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to appoint the next head of the Judiciary. The issue has centered on two conflicting provisions of the 1987 Constitution, one which prohibits the President from making appointments to positions 60 days before the succeeding elections, the so-called “midnight appointments” prohibition, and another which calls on the President to fill in any vacancy in the position of chief justice within 90 days from its occurrence. Various individuals and groups have called on the president not to make the appointment, while the Palace has said that the President will choose the next chief justice to fulfill her constitutional mandate.

The Constitution, in clear and unequivocal terms prohibits any appointments to be made by the President during the 90 day period before the end of her term. Although the President is mandated to fill in any vacancy in the judiciary 90 days from its occurrence, this power and duty is limited by the above constitutional provision. The proscription on “midnight appointments” should be read and harmonized with the duty of the president to fill in vacancies as a qualification on the mandate to make such an appointment. The clear intent of the framers of our constitution is to shield the appointing power of the president from patronage politics and the use of the government for self-interest. Provisions in the Constitution should be read in harmony with each other, and one provision cannot be separated from any other.

We thus call on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to exercise prudence, restraint, and statesmanship by not appointing the next chief justice and allowing the next president elect to make the said decision. The rule of law must be upheld and respected; no one is above the law and the Constitution, not even the President. Our institutions, especially the judiciary, must be insulated from partisan politics. At a time when the Philippines lacks moral leadership and ascendancy, at a point when the integrity of our institutions are being challenged, and at an age when the rule of law faces challenges amidst a sea of injustice, the President must show the people and the world that she is a President bent on protecting and promoting our democracy and our democratic institutions.